Sunday, December 31, 2006

Finally, it's over! The chapter on Saddam closed yesterday, perfectly timed on the eve of Eid-al-Adha, presumably as a gift to the Shias of Iraq. The gift was well received, it so seems, based on the celebrations in Sadr city, under the control of devil's own brother, Muqtada al-Sadr. Yesterday Saddam laughed and Muqtada cried tears of sorrow, today Saddam is dead and Muqtada cried tears of joy, and tomorrow, Muqtada will be in the same gallows, and both him and Saddam will see the fate that they have sowed for themselves. Who has killed more, no one really knows. Perhaps Saddam, as he had much time, but Muqtada was catching up quickly. I also don't want to get caught up in the Muqtada vilification. He is just the obvious one, I am sure the other Shia "Imams" share some of his work-load. I do wonder though how the 'moderate' Shias of the world see these Shia leaders, so I would love to hear from one of the Shias. Killing Saddam on the eve of Eid-al-Adha was another chapter of follies in America's Iraqi misadventure. While America tries to curb the sectarian violence, what a message to send to Iraqi Sunnis! I mean, stuffing it to them will only enrage, and confirm for Iraqi Sunnis that Iraq is firmly in the hands of the Shias, and that they (the Sunnis) will eventually be wiped out. Hello America Iraqi policy-makers, is anyone home? Interestingly, the final exchanges and the sound bytes from the gruesome execution video (the complete, "raw" one; viewer discretion advised) included typical Shia chants (the way they say Allahuma Sale ala Muhammad). I wonder if the Iraqi government had contracted out the execution to Sadr's family?

Saddam and Frankenstein, I am sure many of you have probably picked up on the analogy. In fact, I'd like to refer to him as Saddamenstein. I don't know if you have heard the story of Saddamenstein, so if you haven't, here's your new bed-time story.

You see Saddamenstein is America's own creation that went oh, so wrong. As with America's many woeful tales of failed foreign policies, Saddamenstein was America's man in their proxy war against the Iranian Satan. For 8 years, America supplied weapons, including chemical ones, otherwise referred to as WMDs. I remember seeing a cartoon that showed Uncle Sam asserting, "We KNOW Iraq has them [WMDs]; here, we still have the receipts". As Saddamenstein used his weapons on Iranians (not that Iranians did not respond equally brutally), he became more brazen [Br. Chao's favorite word- inside joke], and used a few of them in his destructive campaign against the Kurds. Many of you may not be aware that he had prison camps, where Kurds were systematically tortured and killed, with names such as "Camp Abu Bakr", "CampUmar", etc., names of the righteous Caliphs. And he planted hatred of Muslims and Islam in the hearts of the Muslim Kurds. Is it any wonder now that there are 3 camps in Iraq: Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds, even though Kurds are Sunnis themselves?!

So, Saddamenstein continued to go down the road of other America's failed experiments (Bin Laden also comes to mind). He next attacked Kuwait. In a thousand years, he would have never dreamed that his "creator" would turn against him, and not accept his unapproved invasion. What a folly! That marked the serious decline of Saddamenstein, as his creator was now on the crusade to take him out. After all, Saddamenstein was out of control, and the last thing you want is to have your experiment blow up in your own face. So, America's might was shipped off to the Persian Gulf to remove Saddamenstein (newly crowned as a "dictator"). Of course, America's media, partners in crime as always, started ripping Saddamenstein apart, reminding people how bad he really was. The fact that they had slept so long on these crimes against humanity mattered not. Because, before Saddamenstein was our friend, his crimes were simply 'friendly fire', merely 'collateral'; after his Kuwaiti adventure, the same crimes took on their true reality.

Once removed from Kuwait, the elder Bush made the right strategic decision for once. He let the dictator of Iraq, Saddamenstein, stay in Iraq. After all, Saddamenstein was an evil dictator, but he could be controlled, and a big Iraqi mess is not where Bush wanted to be in. Saddamenstein's rag-a-tag army was roundly defeated. His wrath was limited to some scuds that mostly didn't do much damage. In the process of course, Israel benefited, getting some extra cash and weapons to protect itself from Saddamenstein. I mean, what's wrong with that? Saddamenstein was a mean dude, and Israel needed to protect itself from this mean dude. Just like the mean Palestinian kids with rocks. Once Saddamenstein was forced to retreat to his enclave, America wanted all of its WMDs back. Saddamenstein was not so thrilled. He had gotten used to those toys, their affect was painful, and he liked to try them on people. Perhaps it was a fetish for him; perhaps the power he had been granted by the world's superpower had gone to his head. Either way, he didn't want to give up these precious toys.

In order to keep Saddamenstein happy, the mad scientists around him told him that he they were on the verge of creating nuclear weapons. The fact that Iraq did not have any materials for it, neither any technical expertise, mattered not to Saddamenstein. He was tickled pink that he could be sitting on the bomb that he so wistfully recalled, had vaporized thousands in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, used by his own creator. So, why couldn't he use it? Of course the world knew that Saddamenstein was a crazy punk, he didn't really have anything of value. The so-called WMDs were limited to a few chemicals, which had probably expired by now. But, how else could America control Saddamenstein? Sanctions, ruthless sanctions. For many, many years, these sanctions crippled Iraq, crippled its economy, and killed millions of its children, mostly under 5 years of age. Saddamenstein didn't seem affected; he was eating well of course in his palace, while the country was slipping into an improvised nation.

Finally, a few years ago, our President, surrounded by his neocon crooks, felt that they had to take out Saddamenstein, because he was thumbing his nose at his creator. Of course, it mattered little that the Inspectors had found nothing, that Iraq under the sanctions could not have developed a toy bomb, let alone a nuclear one; the only thing that mattered was that America's weapons were getting old and the army out of practice. The remote threat that Iraq posed to Israel of course did not help; as remote as aliens attacking Israel. But the facts were not important. The 'war on terror' had to go on; where it went on, and against who, were details that could be worked out later. In that, Iraq obviously had nothing to do with 9/11, was not so obvious to the American people, as a poll several months after the Iraqi invasion showed. 70% Americans were duped into believing that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, another evidence of the complicity of America's media in this error of grand proportions.

A year or so ago, when you questioned America's failed experiment in Iraq, you would be bombarded with the questions straight from the Republican play-book, "Isn't Iraq better without Saddamenstein", or "Are you saying that you support Saddamenstein". Well, now more people are asking the same question, and more and more the answer is, Saddamenstein was a freak accident, a ruthless dictator, but he killed less people in his many years in power, than have been killed since the Iraqi invasion. Henry Blix, the former Arms Inspector thinks that Iraq is far worse off. I would venture to say that many, many Americans are following suit now. Most of the world, of course, agreed with Blix a long time ago. Iraqis seem to agree with Blix too, at least about the security situation.

So, on the false pretence of WMDs, America invaded Iraq, a decision that most Americans rue. A short honey-moon, when Bush's approval sky-rocketed, was followed by reality. The bee-hive had been disturbed, and the different factions in Iraq declared a killing feast on each other. Perhaps, Iraq needed a freak like Saddamenstein to keep control. Perhaps, Iraqis would themselves eventually change the situation for themselves, in more of a controlled fashion. After all, did not America itself have its own civil war? We learned too that you can't force democracy down someone's throat, but it took 3000 American lives, and anywhere from 400,000 to 800,000 Iraqi lives.

9 comments:

Oh, my oh my. I laughed so hard on that posting. First is was the mentioning of my word Brazen, which I would like to make it my trademark and get it copyrighted. The next thing I laughed about was how WMD was his fetish and how he was tickled pink and then how the bee hive was disturbed.

Even though not big fan of Saddam's life, and his adventures, but the way his life ended made me sympathise with him. Prophet Muhammad PBUH said, a man would do deeds (seemingly in one narration) of people of paradise all life, and at the end he would do something that would take him to hellfire, and a man would do deeds (again seemingly in one narration) of people of hellfire all life, and at the end he would do something that would take him to paradise. Saddam said kalimah once completely, and was hung while uttering second time. Being a muslim, I am praying that may Allah forgive his sins and have mercy on him.

Also historically, ruling Iraq is not easy thing, as Saddam said best himself you need a fist of iron to rule it. There was Hajjaj Bin Yousuf who ruled it mercilessly. And not only him, all caliphs and latter dynasties, would rightly crush any rebellion in their territory against the leader.

Saddam was executed in very dubious circumstances, the case was flawed and so was the process from start to end. (in any standard of judicial system). So I do not know if I should say justice was done. Applying these standards, I guess next Pakistani government can hang Musharraf for his killings in Wazirastan and taking out whole Bugti tribe.

Which reminds me that when Bhutto was being hung, he could barely walk to the gallows. It seemed that he is already dead. While Saddam lived upto his name (literal meaning the one who confronts), and he died in defiance as he lived in defiance.

As far as Shia part, I think Shias (being mutazilla influenced) perhaps remembered how one of the righteous governor slaughtered one of mutazillah (it may be Jahmiya, correct me) on day of eid. He said, people you do your udhiya, I am doing mine with him. Wallahu'alam.

Hassan:Allah only knows what is written for Saddamenstein. What we have to be careful about is that we don't think that every person who says the kalimah in the last moments of his death will enter paradise. We all know there are conditions to the kalimah, including submission, sincerity, etc. And again, only Allahu Alam (Allah knows best) concerning his affairs.

As for following any examples of the righteous predecessors, I am not willing to give Shias of Iraq that much benefit. I mean look at the situation. Muqtada and other Shia imams are directly complicit in the murder of Sunnis. On the other side, you have Sunnis committing the same crimes too, but at least they are not following any "Sunnis Imams", but rather some ignorant jihadis. Really, has anyone heard of a Sunni Imam's name behind any militia in Iraq?